E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

The dead guy's last moments, on video for you

He was running at the cops full tilt. He said something about taking hostages. He apparently was holding a broken phone that they say looked like a gun. The PoPo shot him dead. Way dead. The video is here. It isn't safe for work.

If they hadn't killed him, he couldn't have hurt anybody much with a piece of a phone. But it was dark, and he was charging right at the cops, egging them on. And so another sick person dies at the hands of Portland's police. Not their most offensive killing ever. Not by a longshot. But with 20-20 hindsight? They should have let him come.

IF the big corporations would be taxed, and the 1% also paid their fair share that would be a beginning on a national level.
On a local level the abandonment of spending on TIF, trolleys, and trains, would free up millions for local services to help these poor sick souls, fill the pot holes and educate our kids., and that is just for starters.

"So, BoBo, your solution is? More prisons, more mental hospitals? With what money?"

Yep if that is what it takes to keep our kids and society safe. Don't get me started on finding the MUNY, that is the easy part.
All you have to do is return government to it's original and only purpose:

1. Provide for our safety (police , fire, military)
2. Education
3. Provide a safety net for the poor or disabled and our seniors that are in need.

I don't think you can fault the cops on this one. Maybe they should carry over unders with less than leathal rounds in one barrel - cant expect them to holster their weapons to wrastle a crazed person charging them.

If they cannot clearly identify a weapon in the control of a perp/suspect, the PPB should not pre-emptively authorize the use of deadly force. Period. A risk are; kids with toys, people clutching items, including cell phones and keys, anyone "seen" by a cop with need for new glasses, just about any citizen on the street.

You can stroll around Portland if you want to. Me? I'm taking my business elsewhere... someplace where i don't have to worry about Chief Toadie's goons with guns.

why can't just one officer shoot the perp in the leg instead of half a dozen of them open firing on the guy?

The Portland police are trained that if they shoot, they shoot to kill. And they do that if they have any suspicion that the person has a gun. "By the time I see the gun, I'm dead." Those are nearly Sgt. Voeller's exact words, and he was for many years the PPB's firearms trainer.

The other thing they do after a killing is wheel out the dead guy's criminal past. That takes most of the heat off. But they never knew about that record when they killed the guy. As always, they had no idea with whom they were dealing. All they knew was to kill him because he was holding something black is his hand and was charging them.

Gee funny how there's a correlation with threatening violence and non-compliance with officer commands and a wrap sheet. Plus we've had this discussion over and over that its a fantasy to attempt non lethal shots.

"All they knew was to kill him because he was holding something black is his hand and was charging them." From the O today" officers "intentionally kept their distance," but the encounter unfolded quickly. On the way to the call, a police sergeant had asked for a mental health crisis worker, a police dog and a police plane to respond, "but there was no time for these resources to arrive," Reese said." They ordered him to stop. It was dark and he ran towards them. Do you think it would be a good idea to change the rules of the use of deadly force to something like " You must make sure it's a weapon before firing " ? That would be a great way to get police officers killed. Glad you are are not chief.

If this were an armed citizen, and the guy charged them with a cellphone, they would in no way be justified in shooting him dead. The citizen would be charged with manslaughter, at least. So why is it okay for the cops to take someone's life in this situation. A cop who shoots an unarmed person, whatever the circumstance, has committed murder.

That is nuts Frank. They have not committed murder. If the police had a reasonable belief that the person was armed and they ordered him to stop and he did not and they shot and killed him that is not murder.

When multiple police respond to this kind of incident, is it possible at least one be the designated non-lethal shooter? If a gun is present and a suspect is on the ground and fires it, can't the other police let loose then? Bonus- less possibility of shots hurting bystanders and the subject isn't moving - much. Not sure how those rubber bullets (or whatever they use now) work, but what do the police have these [non-lethal] weapons for if they don't use them?

No way they should have let him come. They were told he had a gun and he was clearly on the offense. This is what good policing looks like. They gave him plenty of time and had asked for the proper resources.

I'm all for holding police to a high standard--and in this case they met that high standard. By acting as if they should have super-human night vision (and x-ray vision to see if a gun was in his waistband) as well as ridiculously good aim ("shoot him in the leg" is something someone who has no clue recommends) you discredit your opinion.

Let's get realistic and realize not every crazy guy who runs at police is going to make it. Instead, let's give them credit and focus on the incidents where a real miscarriage of justice occurred.

Sorry - not taking the word of somebody named "pistolero" on whether or not its okay for the cops - who have many other alternatives at hand (police dog, bean bags, tazers, mace, riot shields, billy clubs, etc etc etc - to riddle a crazy guy with 9mm JHP. I am not ignorant on this topic. I am very well informed.

Road Work

Miles run year to date: 156
At this date last year: 225
Total run in 2014: 401
In 2013: 257
In 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269